'Alexander' the Second
Oliver Stone's Alexander, which took a drubbing from audiences and critics when it was released theatrically, has undergone a major reedit for its DVD release, scheduled for Aug. 2, the Los Angeles Times observed today (Tuesday). "I'm not running away from the original, which I loved, but the derision was really devastating," Stone told the newspaper. "Fortunately, films are now like paintings, permitting for several drafts." He added: "Directors don't get paid for working on DVDs - for us, it's a matter of pride."

Is Oliver going to receive the same kind of backlash that Lucas got for updating/altering his movies? Should he?

Discuss.

Mike Windu

07-19-2005, 01:48 PM

No, because SW was actually good as is... :p

lukeiamyourdad

07-19-2005, 02:35 PM

Mike's right. This is a movie that virtually has no fanbase.

I don't see who's going to be angry. It certainly can't make the movie any worse.

Astrotoy7

07-20-2005, 06:39 AM

yeah primeski, SW was released in 1977, the SEs in the mid 90s and DVDs in 2005. So over that time a whole generation of people(us inlcuded) 'grew up with' and loved the original 77 version... Of course, changes to it would seem weird....

Alexander was released what? 8 months ago.... very difficult to make a valid comparison

mtfbwya

toms

07-20-2005, 07:04 AM

What they said.
It might actually make it into a decent film. Maybe.

I am, on the whole, all for directors improving their films when they release them on DVD. Especially if the flaws are due to time constraints or studio interference. Usually I'm happy to watch longer versions of films at home than i would be in the cinema as I can always pause it if i need a break.. and it often allows the director much more time to flesh out the plot than he might have had in the cinema.

That said, I don't like it when they just chuck in a few minutes of crummy scenes that were obviously left out for a reason and call it a "director's cut".

The two things that annoyed everyone with starwars were (a) it was already considered a classic, so people didn't want it messed with, and (b) that they didn't give you the option of choosing the original version. I guess these don't apply to Alexander.

Several all-time classic films wouldn't exist if they hadn't been allowed to be re-edited (though usually due to studio interference rather than the director getting it wrong) - Bladerunner & Once Upon a Time in America being the two most obvious.
Other director's cuts definately add something to the film (Daredevil, LOTR, T2). Some are inoffensive but pointless (Apocalypse Redux) and some completely ruin the film (Star Wars, Aliens).
As long as i have the option to watch both and get the good one i don't care. But if they try and erase the original from history THEN i get upset. Especially if it is better.

--

As a follow up question, what films would people LIKE to see updated/re-edited/extended/improved?

I'd go for:

- Harry Potter 2 and 3.
These were ok films, but I'd quite like an extended version that put back more of the incidental stuff that was in the books. This might smooth out the pacing in the 2nd one as well.

- Gangs of New York
I still think this was rushed, and with a bit of tinkering it could be a good film.

- Kill Bill 1 & 2
I'm sure tarantino said he would ocmbine them, but i've heard nothing. 1 rocked. 2 sucked. Combined they could be anything from terrible to awesome... but it is worth a try.

- Ep1 & Ep2.
Not gonna happen, but i still think that if you combined the two into one film and used Ep1 footage mainly for flashbacks it might be ok. Star Wars the Godfather 2 cut. ;-)

Prime

07-20-2005, 09:18 AM

Just to play Devil's Advocate, many who bashed Lucas did so on the belief that altering completed works of art is wrong. This is regardless of the size of the fanbase.

So is the conclusion, if a bunch of people like it, the creator can't alter it, but if no one does, he can? How big does the fanbase have to be for the former to be true?

Discuss. :)

coupes.

07-20-2005, 09:39 AM

A creator and/or owner has evey right on his creation, people might not like if it gets changed but they don't have anything to say about it, and why should they ?

If Leonardo DaVinci were still alive and wanted to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa he'd have every right to do so. Of course people would disagree, but they couldn't stop it. This is what happened (to a certain extent) when GL changed his movies. He was the creator and the owner of his work, so he had every right to do what he did. Fans were upset, and it's undertandable why, but they can't really do anything about it regardless of how big the fanbase is.

my 0,02$

lukeiamyourdad

07-20-2005, 10:17 AM

The discussion is really about if fans would jump on him and call him an idiot or saying that he ruined the movie etc.

It's all about that and probably is the only reason why a director would decide not to change anything for the fanbase.

I think it's up to him to do such a decision. Alexander's fanbase is probably inexistent, thus they won't get their guns out if he wants to change anything.

Mike Windu

07-20-2005, 01:10 PM

Having a right to change what you want, is different from changing things for the better imo.

I have a right to destroy my computer, as it is mine, but I don't think I should because it is both a valuable piece of property and my parents would be angry.

Not to mention I just got this thing. :p

acdcfanbill

07-20-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by toms
....and some completely ruin the film (Star Wars, Aliens). wth?! the extended cut of Aliens is great, the special edition of Alien 3 makes it a good movie, the shortened cut of Alien didnt bother nor excite me...

El Sitherino

07-20-2005, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by acdcfanbill
wth?! the extended cut of Aliens is great, the special edition of Alien 3 makes it a good movie, the shortened cut of Alien didnt bother nor excite me... Indeed, I dunno what drugs you've been overdosing on. But your statement there confuses me.

toms

07-21-2005, 06:47 AM

But surely at some point the work can trancend its original status and become a historical document that should be preserved?

I have no problem with modifying classics, but they should always archive the original to keep it for future generations.

This USED to be the way that Copyright was suppsed to work... once it had been copyrighted the creator got some rights, but also the work went into the public domain and was supposed to remain publicly accessible. Two copies of any book were supposed to be sent to the national library, for example. Unfortunately the law has been changed to remove these elements.

With everything in the world becoming increasingly fleeting, transient and digital its important that items are preserved... or in generations time they are going to look back at the 80-00s and see a big hole.

Lucas wasn't the first director to re-edit something that was considered a classic. But he was pretty much the first one to do it who then refused to allow the original version to exist.

--

PS/ Aliens DC sucked big time. The opening colony scene was tacky low budget sci-fi. It was completely predictable and gave away half of the upcoming events to the film. It also messed up the pacing and the feeling of not knowing what was going on when they arrived at the colony. The Video Garden scene was ok, but fairly pointless and added nothing while slowing down the film at the wrong place. The Smart-gun scene was pretty cool, but again not really needed.
Aliens has one of the best pacings of any film in existence, and the DC completely destroys that and makes it seem like the many low-budget rip-offs that followed.
T2 DC on the other hand has scenes that actually add something, and don't destroy the pacing. Though there is an extra scene with the scientist's family in the middle that is pointless.
The difference is that for both films you can get both versions.. so each of us is happy. Same with alexander. With SW you can't.

El Sitherino

07-21-2005, 11:58 AM

Oh noes I can't get the originals bcuz evil luca$. :rolleyes:

lukeiamyourdad

07-21-2005, 08:32 PM

Don't people already own them on VHS anyway?

I'm sure that if people keep on complaining about not having the originals, Lucasfilm marketing will find a good reason to release them on DVD or something...

toms

07-28-2005, 06:12 AM

Sounds like he's basically just cut out 8 minutes to try and make it a bit less dull, and then maybe moved the odd other bit around.

The two basic problems with Alexander were that he picked the wrong parts of his life to highlight, and miscast farrell... so I don't think he can fix those by lopping off 8 minutes.

I've seen one review of the R1, which says it doesn't really improve the film, and a few reviews of the R3 that say te same. There is a bit of confusiong over whether the R3 is the real directors cut or not though.

Wouldn't get your hopes up...

Prime

07-28-2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by toms
Wouldn't get your hopes up... Never had any hopes to begin with. :)